Why does anarchism matter to me?

[|Y|]

Oh well, he thinks and writes like you (but you are CI).

[Guest]

i believe the point of the question was would an anarchist accept wealth, thus accept the trappings of the ruling class. there is no way to answer the question to the satisfaction of the original questioner because if i accept, i am a sellout, and if i don't accept i am succumbing to morals.

Hehe, that is precisely my point. So which is it, Skullcap?

[skullcap]

i believe the point of the question was would an anarchist accept wealth, thus accept the trappings of the ruling class. there is no way to answer the question to the satisfaction of the original questioner because if i accept, i am a sellout, and if i don't accept i am succumbing to morals.

Hehe, that is precisely my point. So which is it, Skullcap?

the operative words here are "to the satisfaction of the original questioner". i have answered the question to my satisfaction, though, i would not accept wealth nor do i think that is a moral choice. i gave you the principle on which i made the decision, you disagree about the morality. we disagree: you are not going to convince me and i won't convince you. what more is there to say?

[skullcap]

I look at it differently I guess. If someone gave you a factory couldn't you sell it and divide the cost between the workers?

if someone gave me a factory today, with society still in place, with capital still operative, i would be accepting admission to the ownership class. even if i did as you suggest it would not change the relationship between workers and capital. i want to see obliterated the relationship between workers and capital. (and besides which, why work?)

Since you asked I consider myself an anarchist because in spirit I'm against the state and being ruled in general but I don't claim to avoid doing some ruling of my own.

"doing some ruling of my own."
first of all. . . WHAT?
ok, what do you mean by ruling? what exactly do you mean "in spirit I'm against the state"? is that different from actually being anti-state?

[Nexonic]

I look at it differently I guess. If someone gave you a factory couldn't you sell it and divide the cost between the workers?

if someone gave me a factory today, with society still in place, with capital still operative, i would be accepting admission to the ownership class. even if i did as you suggest it would not change the relationship between workers and capital. i want to see obliterated the relationship between workers and capital. (and besides which, why work?)

This is what I mean by moralistic. It seems you would rather stand by principle than actually help people if given the chance.

Since you asked I consider myself an anarchist because in spirit I'm against the state and being ruled in general but I don't claim to avoid doing some ruling of my own.

"doing some ruling of my own."
first of all. . . WHAT?
ok, what do you mean by ruling? what exactly do you mean "in spirit I'm against the state"? is that different from actually being anti-state?

What I mean is that I pay taxes. This perpetuates the ruling class system. In other words I'm against the state in principle but admit to helping support it.

[skullcap]

This is what I mean by moralistic. It seems you would rather stand by principle than actually help people if given the chance.

well, now, who is it being moralistic?

this isn't about helping others, but about me wanting to be free. and your formulation makes it seem as if these hypothetical others can't do anything for themselves, i mean, where is their volition in your world? you think they are all just sitting there waiting for me to acquire their factory, no i bet they are organizing for the general strike. they don't need or want my help. where does all this paternalism come from?

What I mean is that I pay taxes. This perpetuates the ruling class system. In other words I'm against the state in principle but admit to helping support it.

you know, this conversation over the internet would just go so much more smoothly if you said what you actually mean the first time around. "ruling" has a bunch of conotations that "paying taxes" does not. to me "paying taxes" is more about me not wanting to end up in prison than about me "ruling" over anyone. it is one of the contradictions i have to live with in order to survive in this stupid world.

[Guest]

the operative words here are "to the satisfaction of the original questioner". i have answered the question to my satisfaction, though, i would not accept wealth nor do i think that is a moral choice. i gave you the principle on which i made the decision, you disagree about the morality. we disagree: you are not going to convince me and i won't convince you. what more is there to say?

How is refusing wealth on principle not following some sort of moral code? Surely you don't obey the principle simply because it happens to be a part of the political theory you subscribe to. You refuse wealth because you adhere to the principles of anarchy that forbid it, but what I want to know is why you adhere to those principles in the first place.

[skullcap]

if you are going to insist that principles=morals then i don't think i can have any meaningful discussion with you. i pointed out in an earlier post that principles are about the fundamentals of a thing or idea and morals are about the rightness or wrongness of a thing or idea.

also, the rest of your language is loaded. particularly the use of the word obey. you want me to say i obey the principles of anarchy and then you will say "ha ha, you are a hypocrite because anarchists aren't supposed to obey anything". am i correct?

well, anarchy and anarchists are like everything, we are complicated and nothing is black and white. what to me is my desire for non-heirarchy, anti-capitalism and freedom (poor ol' misused word that it is), you will call "obeying" and try to equate it with obeying a god or obeying the law.

i don't want to just play rhetorical games. i would rather have an honest discussion about anarchy. i don't expect anyone to agree with me or change hir mind based on discussion with me, but i do expect some agreement on the use of language. at least for the sake of argument.

--skullcap

[Guest]

if you are going to insist that principles=morals then i don't think i can have any meaningful discussion with you. i pointed out in an earlier post that principles are about the fundamentals of a thing or idea and morals are about the rightness or wrongness of a thing or idea.

Ok, so you don't believe it is wrong to accept wealth or right to refuse it, but you do so because the principles of anarchy stipulate that you should refuse wealth. If that is the case, then why do you follow that specific principle, even when it leads you to do things that are contrary to your self-interest?

[Nexonic]

This is what I mean by moralistic. It seems you would rather stand by principle than actually help people if given the chance.

well, now, who is it being moralistic?

this isn't about helping others, but about me wanting to be free. and your formulation makes it seem as if these hypothetical others can't do anything for themselves, i mean, where is their volition in your world? you think they are all just sitting there waiting for me to acquire their factory, no i bet they are organizing for the general strike. they don't need or want my help. where does all this paternalism come from?

Look I can totally understand not wanting to become a boss. I have had the opportunity in my life to take over a multi-million dollar family business. I have never wanted that primarily because of my independence. In this case I couldn't sell it until at least my dad died or people would be pretty upset. If it was some long lost uncle I never knew who left me a factory in his will I would take it and sell it without a second thought.

What I mean is that I pay taxes. This perpetuates the ruling class system. In other words I'm against the state in principle but admit to helping support it.

you know, this conversation over the internet would just go so much more smoothly if you said what you actually mean the first time around. "ruling" has a bunch of conotations that "paying taxes" does not. to me "paying taxes" is more about me not wanting to end up in prison than about me "ruling" over anyone. it is one of the contradictions i have to live with in order to survive in this stupid world.

It's obviously about more than survival. You could work totally under the table, be a panhandler or all sorts of things that would make your life less comfortable while contributing less to the state. Where exactly does your fondness of a comfortable life cross the line where it would be opposed to the principles of anarchism?

[skullcap]

if you are going to insist that principles=morals then i don't think i can have any meaningful discussion with you. i pointed out in an earlier post that principles are about the fundamentals of a thing or idea and morals are about the rightness or wrongness of a thing or idea.

Ok, so you don't believe it is wrong to accept wealth or right to refuse it, but you do so because the principles of anarchy stipulate that you should refuse wealth. If that is the case, then why do you follow that specific principle, even when it leads you to do things that are contrary to your self-interest?

no.
i'm saying the decision wouldn't be made based on right or wrong. the decision would be made based on my self-interest in being free.

[skullcap]

It's obviously about more than survival. You could work totally under the table, be a panhandler or all sorts of things that would make your life less comfortable while contributing less to the state. Where exactly does your fondness of a comfortable life cross the line where it would be opposed to the principles of anarchism?

ok, here we a conversation. good question.

first, just for the sake of argument, i don't agree with your assertion that working under the table necessarily leads to a less comfortable life. being homeless and panhandling, yes i agree are not comfortable options.

also, even though i have used it, i'm not sure i like the word "comfortable" in this context. i'm not sure what is better, though so . . . .

i would say too, that contributing to the state is a real grey area. just living in the USA (i am making assumptions, sorry if they are in error) is contributing to the state. maybe there are more or less ways to do that, but using the roads is benefiting from the state, so how would one live w/out the state while the state still exists? it is all a matter of compromise, no?

and, a comfortable life is not opposed to the principles of anarchy, depending on what is meant by "comfortable", of course, hense my objection to the term.

just some thoughts, gotta go now.

[Guest]

no.
i'm saying the decision wouldn't be made based on right or wrong. the decision would be made based on my self-interest in being free.

So rejecting wealth benefits you because it makes you more free than accepting it? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you greatly, but I'm not sure how eschewing wealth maximizes your freedom or benefits your self-interest. Wouldn't this particular principle of anarchy be one that isn't in your self-interest to follow?

[Nexonic]

first, just for the sake of argument, i don't agree with your assertion that working under the table necessarily leads to a less comfortable life. being homeless and panhandling, yes i agree are not comfortable options.

also, even though i have used it, i'm not sure i like the word "comfortable" in this context. i'm not sure what is better, though so . . . .

Maybe comfortable is not the best word but I think it's safe to say the more money you have the more support you must give to the state unless you forgo taxes and risk loosing it. Money may not buy happiness but it can buy comfort.

i would say too, that contributing to the state is a real grey area. just living in the USA (i am making assumptions, sorry if they are in error) is contributing to the state. maybe there are more or less ways to do that, but using the roads is benefiting from the state, so how would one live w/out the state while the state still exists? it is all a matter of compromise, no?

Well my question revolves around benefiting the state not merely living off some of its aspects. In fact living off the state without giving anything back seems like it would help weaken it.

So again, how much benefiting from the state is in line with anarchist principles? How is accepting a free factory and disposing of it in a way that hurts the state opposed to anarchist principles?

[Gonzo Joker]

Skullcap, if you are a prisoner, and are given daily meals by your captors.... would you decline to accept those meals out of principle, in the interests of not "benefitting" from your captivity?

Or would you accept the food, yet still try your best to secure your freedom?